On Fri, Jul 29, 2011 at 08:24:41AM +0100, Al Viro wrote: ... > > > > > > Thanks for comments, Dave! Still the read only lock without > > > increasing sequence number might be useful, no? (patch 1) > > > > I'll defer to Al on that one - the intricacies of the rename locking > > are way over my head. > > I'm not sure that's safe. Note that one use of rename_lock is that > we allow hash lookup to race with d_move(). Which can move object > from one hash chain to another, so hash lookup may end up jumping > from one chain to another and getting a false negative. That's > why __d_lookup() is not safe without read_seqretry loop (or seq_writelock, > of course). > ... Thanks a lot for explanations, Al! Cyrill -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
